Faculty Experiences with and Perceptions of Research-based Instructional Strategies: Preliminary Interview FindingsCharles Henderson, Western Michigan University
Chandra Turpen, University of Colorado
“Understanding Instructor Practices and Attitudes Towards the Use of Research- Based Instructional Strategies In Introductory College Physics” NSF-CCLI, 2008-2110 DUE-0715698
During the fall of 2009, we conducted interviews with over 70 physics faculty across the United States. Interviewees were from a group of over 700 faculty who had previously answered an online survey. Interviewees were selected to represent a range of institution types (2 year represent a range of institution types (2 year colleges, bachelor degree granting institutions, and graduate degree granting institutions) and reported knowledge and use of research based- instructional strategies. Questions focused on their experiences with research-based instructional strategies. We report preliminary findings from these interviews
How can we increase the impact of the impact of
Physics Education Research?
Pilot Work • Interviews of five physics faulty.
Fall 2008 Web-Based Survey • Representative sample of 722 physics faculty across USA.
Most faculty (87%) report knowledge of at least one research-based product.
Many faculty (48%) report using a research-based product.research-based product.
Faculty modify research-based products during implementation.
Situational barriers are significant. Faculty report “time” as the most common change deterrent.
Fall 2009 Interviews • Follow up interviews conducted with 72 survey participants.
• Equally distributed among two-year institutions four-year institutions four-year institutions graduate institutions.
User Former User Knowledgeable Non-User
Peer Instruction
Workshop Physics
N=12 N=12 N=12
Good News! Faculty are ripe for research- based innovations. They… • Believe students need to be Believe students need to be actively engaged to learn.
• Believe the traditional approach is ineffective.
• See value in research-based approaches.
• Care about teaching and put a lot of time into it.
Faculty over report levels of knowledge and use. • Ideas often vague/general
High level of modification.High level of modification. • Due to infrastructure constraints, lack of pedagogical knowledge, disbelief in method locally, etc.
• Unsuccessful implementation leads to abandonment
Teaching evaluation not based on student learning. • Student ratings of teaching and peer observations common.
• Faculty lack feedback.• Faculty lack feedback. • Institutional reward/support structure not supportive of research-based change.
Departments and institutions “supportive” of innovation. • Support is generally in the form of “not getting in the way”.
Social connections are important. • Attended New Faculty Workshop, Two-Year College Workshop
• Colleague used technique • Attended a graduate school with a strong PER • Attended a graduate school with a strong PER program
Reasons for not using more research- based techniques • Environmental conditions not supportive • Lack of time to learn about, reflect on, and implement changeimplement change
• Concern about declines in student ratings of teaching
• Disbelief in research-based innovations. • Not enough time in class • External expectations of how class is run.
Standard dissemination is effective at • Increasing dissatisfaction with traditional approach. • Increasing awareness of research-based approaches
Ineffective at large-scale, meaningful and Ineffective at large-scale, meaningful and sustained change.
Better Model? • Beyond the Individual • Policy and Cultural Departmental, Institutional, and National